I especially love the "too old" arguments, especially with regard to the recently released AOY content.
You'd really have to be a complete moron to not recognize the retro-throwback motif artwork which is targeted toward those who relishes the "old" style.
The "too old" argument worked until the release of the AoY content. The 23rd Century C-Store ships almost guaranteed that a Tier 6 TOS Constitution was coming and soon. Although, it could be said that the 23rd Century C-Store ships aren't from the 23rd Century, but 31st Century ships designed to look like they are from the 23rd Century. After all, we are not getting a Tier 6 23rd Century Light Cruiser, but a Temporal Light Cruiser with futuristic Molecular Reconstruction technology that looks like it came from the 23rd Century. So is it a Tier 6 TOS Constitution if it only looks like a TOS Constitution on the outside and full of 31st Century technology on the inside?
The beyond obvious hint this was going to happen was when they polished the T1 Connie model. They don't do model polish passes unless they're selling new variants. But, stupid people tend to shove their head further up their TRIBBLE and deny reality rather than admit that things are changing and/or they were wrong or hoodwinked. Classic "allegory of the cave".
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
I especially love the "too old" arguments, especially with regard to the recently released AOY content.
You'd really have to be a complete moron to not recognize the retro-throwback motif artwork which is targeted toward those who relishes the "old" style.
The "too old" argument worked until the release of the AoY content. The 23rd Century C-Store ships almost guaranteed that a Tier 6 TOS Constitution was coming and soon. Although, it could be said that the 23rd Century C-Store ships aren't from the 23rd Century, but 31st Century ships designed to look like they are from the 23rd Century. After all, we are not getting a Tier 6 23rd Century Light Cruiser, but a Temporal Light Cruiser with futuristic Molecular Reconstruction technology that looks like it came from the 23rd Century. So is it a Tier 6 TOS Constitution if it only looks like a TOS Constitution on the outside and full of 31st Century technology on the inside?
The beyond obvious hint this was going to happen was when they polished the T1 Connie model. They don't do model polish passes unless they're selling new variants. But, stupid people tend to shove their head further up their **** and deny reality rather than admit that things are changing and/or they were wrong or hoodwinked. Classic "allegory of the cave".
This logic also arguably be applied to the countless that hold onto the Dilithium market as to their purchases rather than just realize this game is a business and not a charity model. But alas, the fire must so be warm that they'll never see daylight.
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
I especially love the "too old" arguments, especially with regard to the recently released AOY content.
You'd really have to be a complete moron to not recognize the retro-throwback motif artwork which is targeted toward those who relishes the "old" style.
The "too old" argument worked until the release of the AoY content. The 23rd Century C-Store ships almost guaranteed that a Tier 6 TOS Constitution was coming and soon. Although, it could be said that the 23rd Century C-Store ships aren't from the 23rd Century, but 31st Century ships designed to look like they are from the 23rd Century. After all, we are not getting a Tier 6 23rd Century Light Cruiser, but a Temporal Light Cruiser with futuristic Molecular Reconstruction technology that looks like it came from the 23rd Century. So is it a Tier 6 TOS Constitution if it only looks like a TOS Constitution on the outside and full of 31st Century technology on the inside?
The too old argument never worked. In 2409, the Excelsior, Galaxy and Sovereign were all end-game ships, and all old by that time period. The Somraw and various Birds of Prey were also ancient. The D'Kyr was ancient. And it just kept going and going and going.
Old ships were in the end-game almost the entire time.
Yet we saw not one credible reference to anything from CBS saying they couldn't use a T6 TOS Constitution. Much like a T6 Vesta, etc.
Yep, feasting on crow, they are.
Except for the fact that numerous developers of STO have said in countless interviews over the years that CBS was against the idea of a higher tier TOS Constitution, because the ship should be rare at this point in the timeline. Is that not credible enough for you?
I was one of those that said it most likely wouldn't happen, because the developers said so, because CBS said so, and that that wasn't likely to change, but that they'll continue to ask for it. Obviously, the rarity problem was sorted by doing it in the R&D packs.
I have no regrets over repeating the information that was given to us from credible sources, so there's no real "gotcha" situation here for you to feel smug or superior over, instead you just look foolish and ill-informed.
Wait, were you also one of those posters who said that it shouldn't be in the game because it's too old?
It would break immersion?
It's too small to really pack the required punch for end-game combat?
Did you point out that an excelsior went toe to toe with a Defiant, so had evolved over the century, but that the Connie couldn't because it's dimensions were too restrictiing?
Did you dissect every battle scene in DS9 using an Excelsior?
Did you claim the Connie had been retired by 2409?
Did you suggest that it wouldn't look right having that ship in an STF against the Borg?
Just want to delve into the depths of where you were in this debate so I don't look foolish being smug about the ship being put into the game finally.
CBS (or was it Paramount? Or was it Cryptic? Or was it Statesman?) said no!
Until 2016, when for some weird reason they decided that it wasn't too old, and finally said yes!
No. I was one of those that said: "The Dev's have said no, because CBS said no" which was a fact, pure and simple, for the past 6 years of the games existence, no matter how you look at it. That's changed now, and CBS said yes, which is a recent development.
I'm not stupid enough to ignore the facts, or that things change over the course of time. It's a fact of life. Nor am I foolish enough to think that because something doesn't exist in an MMO that it won't one day come into existence. However, the word of the developers of that MMO should be taken as gospel as often as possible when considering what is coming. (That's why, in more recent interviews, all of the developers were avoiding the question, or pulling out the answer of "I can neither confirm nor deny" that a T6 TOS Connie was in the works).
Your ignorance of the history of the game and the developers comments on this topic doesn't make you "right", it doesn't make you "smart" and it doesn't justify your smug attitude. Furthermore, continuing to draw attention to your stupidity only continues to make you look like an even bigger fool.
I especially love the "too old" arguments, especially with regard to the recently released AOY content.
You'd really have to be a complete moron to not recognize the retro-throwback motif artwork which is targeted toward those who relishes the "old" style.
The "too old" argument worked until the release of the AoY content. The 23rd Century C-Store ships almost guaranteed that a Tier 6 TOS Constitution was coming and soon. Although, it could be said that the 23rd Century C-Store ships aren't from the 23rd Century, but 31st Century ships designed to look like they are from the 23rd Century. After all, we are not getting a Tier 6 23rd Century Light Cruiser, but a Temporal Light Cruiser with futuristic Molecular Reconstruction technology that looks like it came from the 23rd Century. So is it a Tier 6 TOS Constitution if it only looks like a TOS Constitution on the outside and full of 31st Century technology on the inside?
Being a "temporal" ship, like the others, it would be a fair assumption that it's not really from the 23rd century, I'd say.
And I'd agree that the "too old" argument was completely valid. For that matter, it's still valid. But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future.
So I'm still not seeing how that "too old" comment is a "gotcha" thing that some in this thread are making it out to be.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
Yeah, I'm not convinced of that. I mean I've been a player of this game since Beta. A player of Champions Online prior. And an early adopter, tester, and player of City of Heroes since the day I was "sold" on the concept by Statesman at a comic con many many many years ago. I've got a pretty good recollection of the "history of the game" for almost everything Cryptic Studios has ever created.
But I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game as long as you maintain your assertion that you were just one of those "CBS said no" people and NOT one of those "Ship is TOO OLD!" people ...
And I'd agree that the "too old" argument was completely valid. For that matter, it's still valid.
Yeah, I'm not convinced of that. I mean I've been a player of this game since Beta. A player of Champions Online prior. And an early adopter, tester, and player of City of Heroes since the day I was "sold" on the concept by Statesman at a comic con many many many years ago. I've got a pretty good recollection of the "history of the game" for almost everything Cryptic Studios has ever created.
But I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game as long as you maintain your assertion that you were just one of those "CBS said no" people and NOT one of those "Ship is TOO OLD!" people ...
And I'd agree that the "too old" argument was completely valid. For that matter, it's still valid.
Oh wait. Nevermind.
I am pretty sure that at some point, I was in the "too old" camp, too.
But I think once they released the Tier 5 excelsior that ship had sailed. And by Agents of Yesterday, that ship had already discovered America, New Zealand, Australia and Atlantis and had been retrofitted with a nuclear reactor and an etherpropeller.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I am pretty sure that at some point, I was in the "too old" camp...
(While this may make me look foolish because as has been demonstrated by another poster I have zero knowledge of the history of the game) ... When the game launched, there was some logic in the tier system.
T4 were the hero ships. And T5 was the DSSV and the Luna in Science, the Assault Cruiser and Star Cruiser in ENG, and the two brand new looking escorts in Tactical. Over on the Klingon side, the players even got the Vo'Quv, a totally new never before seen idea for a ship (a carrier). It was all brand new stuff except for the Luna (based on the books, but still cutting edge in Star Trek lore timeline) and the Sovereign (which was the most recent Enterprise and just one of three skins).
So yeah, for that brief shining moment in the history of the game, there was a progression in the tiers through time, with only small holes in consistency. Granted outside of you, me and a handful of others, most posters on these forums weren't playing the game during that very small window.
Then the hero ships got retrofits. Then the store came out. Then the AGT Galaxy special. And the excelsior. And the D'Kyr. And so on and so forth. The logic ended very fast and very much as you say ... the ship sailed.
But even today people cling to this idea. It's fun and entertaining in 2016, now that there's a T6 Xindi ship a T6 T'laru, a T5-U Constellation, a T6 Daedalus ... and soon the T6 Connie will join its ranks.
There's still threads making fun of the concept (peep the new T6 NX-01 request thread). So the idea that age has something to do with tiers is something that no matter how many times a new ship that breaks this imagined rule is released, still gets pushed forth as existing.
SIDE NOTE: While it's all lost to multiple forum revamps, one of my longest standing issues with the tier system and this "too old" debate is that many of the same posters who back then clung to the idea, were also massively OK with the Excelsior being pound for pound slightly better than the Sovereign. It's been the fuel for my own fire for years and years and years. A great many of the defenders of the purity of the tier system, those who felt that age mattered, were all very much in support of the Excelsior being slightly better at being a cruiser than the Sovereign. That always bugged me. So combine that with a massive fandom for the 1960s style ships and it's pretty obvious where my foolishness and ignorance for wanting a ship that's too old, like the Constitution class starship, to be playable at end-game really came from.
TLDR: If it's perfectly OK for the Excelsior to be on par with the Sovereign, then give me the better Enterprise (certainly better than Harriman's Ent-B ) ... Kirk's Enterprise ... at the end-game and let me be on my merry way.
Yep. I think it was okay to believe in this idea that tier equaled tech level at some point, but one has to look at what happened since then. The game moved on, keep up! You could just as well expect more faction-specific content!
If the T'Varo wasn't already a Tier 6 ship, I could also totally see an NX-01 / Somraw / T'Varo package (be it lockbox, promo, C-Store or event ship) coming. Though I don't think that would generate the excitement the Connie gets. (Maybe that means it would be the perfect Event reward - the exclusive-never-come-back factor will get people to run on those ships anyway.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Yeah, I'm not convinced of that. I mean I've been a player of this game since Beta. A player of Champions Online prior. And an early adopter, tester, and player of City of Heroes since the day I was "sold" on the concept by Statesman at a comic con many many many years ago.
So what? I've been here since beta too, and I played Champions and City of Heroes in beta too. So we're both old, that doesn't explain your clear ignorance about what the executive producers and developers of STO have been saying for the past 6 years - until recently, when the message changed.
But I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game as long as you maintain your assertion that you were just one of those "CBS said no" people and NOT one of those "Ship is TOO OLD!" people ...
And I'd agree that the "too old" argument was completely valid. For that matter, it's still valid.
Oh wait. Nevermind.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
I've never defended the Excelsior as a superior ship, nor do I agree that it should be. For that matter, I'm not really a fan of the Xindi ships or the Andorian ships, or the Vulcan ships, or any of the older ships. And really, they aren't superior ships anymore, and haven't been for a while, so I don't get the point you're trying to make.
Oh, I made a statement that says the ship is too old? It is, chronologically speaking. So is the Excelsior. That's just another one of those annoying facts of the Star Trek canon. The fact that the Excelsior was still in use during the TNG era has more to do with the real world and the shows budget, but I'll bite and say that the Excelsior was an incredibly advanced ship when it came out, designed to replace the flagship of the fleet - the Refit Constitution (not the TOS era ship, but it's replacement). Memory Alpha points out that the DESIGN carried forward - not necessarily the original ships of that make and model - for the next 100 years. In the real world, we're still using the same basic design for sailing ships over a hundred years later, though the technology in use aboard those vessels has updated with time, but I guess that's just another of those facts that we can toss out the window right?
Regardless, the most glaring fact remains that these new ship - the T6 TEMPORAL Connie et al - clearly aren't ships from the 23rd century anymore.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
Gotta love when people resort to generic namecalling because they know thye've lost an argument.
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
You guys are arguing about a video games based off a fake tv/movie universe way past its prime. Get over yourselves.
Who's arguing? I'm having a debate, using facts to back up my point of view. It's not my fault that the other side of the debate is ignoring those facts.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
Which part of "Temporal ship" don't you understand? At no point have I said that the "Temporal" Constitution is too old to be effective in the game, so I've got no idea what you've been reading.
But you know what, go on ahead, if it makes you feel better about yourself go ahead and think of yourself as superior and smart and take your "win" or whatever you need to do to get on with your life.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
You guys are arguing about a video games based off a fake tv/movie universe way past its prime. Get over yourselves.
Yet you're here as well because.... why, exactly?
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
I have to ask, and without wanting to read the entire thread, was it ever actually proven that CBS said no?
I mean, I seem to recall that the one and only mention of this was an offhand comment by a former community manager - someone who wasn't really in a position to comment on the the offical stance surrounding the matter anyway.
It was never absolutely proven. In fact, in closing the statement they offered that we never know what could happen in the future.
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
I never said it wont happen...I'm only say that this ship is FUGLY...and I still say that with 100% confidence. Its a crappy design and from that perspective not Cryptic's best work.
man i swear there used to be a lot of people who said that a t6 end game connie would never happen. then when the kelvin connie happened, they started saying yeah but a TOS end game connie will never happen. and now its happened. so where are all those people? we need a roll call lololol
The correct phrase is "T5 connie: Never going to happen!" and that still holds true.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
I'm pretty sure most of this was before you came on board. I made this post a few years back because the topic would always come up in some form. Looks like I can put it to rest now!
January 7th, 2009:
Q: “Is there a way to keep a ship you like and be able to upgrade it to be the equivalent to your avatar's level? For instance, if I want to stay with a Defiant class but my character is at Sovereign class level - is there a way I can get it to match a bigger ship’s capability?”
A: The answer here is yes and no. You’ll start with a Tier 1 ship and you can certainly upgrade it and trick it out so that it’s comparable to a mid-level Tier 2 ship. However, a top of the line Tier 2 ship is going to be much better than even the most tricked out Tier 1. It has to do with growth capacity. There’s just more room for growth built into the higher tier ships. Of course, your skills and the skills of your bridge crew also affect how much you can do with your ship. However, you do get to keep your ships. So, if you find yourself in a situation where an earlier ship would be more useful, you can switch back to it for that encounter. For example, you might want to shift back to a smaller and more maneuverable ship for running a blockade.
Q: Captain-Lang: Will we have refit for lower tier ship such as a miranda refit?
A: While we do not currently intend to add specific lower tier refits into the ship requisition stores, a future goal of the crafting system is to allow players to outfit and refit their own starships. Under that new system, I would hope that you could take a Miranda class ship and using a budget, refit the class to be something more appropriate to modern times. We're a ways off from having details on this type of feature, but I can say we want to see refits in the future.
Q: DecadeComplete How's the T5 Constitution Refit-Refit that was in a recent engineering report doing? Will there ever be a way to purchase "Ship Slots" and "Costume Slots" in game with say 1Mil EC or so?
A: We are working to add more variations to existing ships for both factions and one of the ships they are working on is an additional Constitution refit; however there has been no confirmation that this is a top tier ship. Geko can add more details as we get closer to Season 4 release, but for now, I can only say that we are working with CBS on an alternative refit design. As far as making ship and costume slots available for in game currency, we are considering finding a way we could offer them for in game currency, or in the case of ship slots, have the ships come with slots as part of the purchase price.
Q: dorko1 I know that the refit is still a touchy subject, but could you guys shed any light on what might happen? I understand that there should be obvious misgivings about the idea of the Constitution class outmatching a vessel 200 yrs new and twice its size, but a replica that's really more of an Excalibur class vessel might be able to add something to the mix.
A: You are correct that it is a touchy subject amongst the community and based on the discussions we've had with CBS about ships, I don't think we're going to put a high-end Constitution Class refit into the game. You can still have a lower tier TOS Connie use the Squad Leader feature to bring their stats up to a higher level, but the odds of an end game Connie refit is a long shot.
Q: (thmichael) Are you going to implement the Ambassador Class at some point? And would it be possible to implement the Old Constitution Class for higher ranks?
A: Yes. The Ambassador class is coming in 2013. CBS is still pretty adamant about the Old Connie not being an end game ship, but you never know what can happen as time rolls by.
Q: (cidstorm) How does Captain Smirk personally feel about the T5 Connie issue?
A: I personally think it is more of a forum issue right now because there are so many threads that pop up. Not going to come into the game I think ever! The T5 Connie, it was something that used to drive Branflakes insane, he would make me delete those threads, hide them. It doesn’t bother me that much. I would love something along the lines of like the Exeter class. I would love to have a traditional Connie with a 1960’s kind of bussard collector on the nacelles, something that is really big and powerful, like if you gave the regular constitution class a "grow mushroom" from Mario Bros and it just got big and super OP. I would love that but it’s not going to happen. There will not be a T5 Connie.
Thanks for posting that. It ought to (but probably won't) stop the cries of "Cryptic lied about CBS!" , "Cryptic said never", etc.
My take:
Cryptic wanted to offer it, CBS said no at that time. For the 50th anniversary and in contract negotiations to extend the license and add consoles, CBS changed their mind and said either "go ahead" or "go ahead but make it rare like the alien ships."
I know this probably will be disregarded by the mentally unhinged posters on the STO forums, but it's generally considered a bad decision to make up lies about your employer.
Source: Every company ever.
So, if Cryptic lied about about CBS saying no, they would be guilty of acting in bad faith at best and behaving potentially libelous at worst.
Therefore, it's probably true CBS Studios said no at a previous point in time, instead of Cryptic going through some kind of bizarre Andy Kaufman-type social experiment to TRIBBLE people off for 6 straight years by lying about what their licensor said regarding an end-game Connie just for teh lulz.
Comments
The beyond obvious hint this was going to happen was when they polished the T1 Connie model. They don't do model polish passes unless they're selling new variants. But, stupid people tend to shove their head further up their TRIBBLE and deny reality rather than admit that things are changing and/or they were wrong or hoodwinked. Classic "allegory of the cave".
This logic also arguably be applied to the countless that hold onto the Dilithium market as to their purchases rather than just realize this game is a business and not a charity model. But alas, the fire must so be warm that they'll never see daylight.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
I just didn't think Cryptic would be greedy enough to put it under the gamble paywall, but they did.
Another ship crossed of the list.
The too old argument never worked. In 2409, the Excelsior, Galaxy and Sovereign were all end-game ships, and all old by that time period. The Somraw and various Birds of Prey were also ancient. The D'Kyr was ancient. And it just kept going and going and going.
Old ships were in the end-game almost the entire time.
Too old never worked.
If you think about it, they did it twice.
Once for the JJprise, once for the real one.
No. I was one of those that said: "The Dev's have said no, because CBS said no" which was a fact, pure and simple, for the past 6 years of the games existence, no matter how you look at it. That's changed now, and CBS said yes, which is a recent development.
I'm not stupid enough to ignore the facts, or that things change over the course of time. It's a fact of life. Nor am I foolish enough to think that because something doesn't exist in an MMO that it won't one day come into existence. However, the word of the developers of that MMO should be taken as gospel as often as possible when considering what is coming. (That's why, in more recent interviews, all of the developers were avoiding the question, or pulling out the answer of "I can neither confirm nor deny" that a T6 TOS Connie was in the works).
Your ignorance of the history of the game and the developers comments on this topic doesn't make you "right", it doesn't make you "smart" and it doesn't justify your smug attitude. Furthermore, continuing to draw attention to your stupidity only continues to make you look like an even bigger fool.
Being a "temporal" ship, like the others, it would be a fair assumption that it's not really from the 23rd century, I'd say.
And I'd agree that the "too old" argument was completely valid. For that matter, it's still valid. But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future.
So I'm still not seeing how that "too old" comment is a "gotcha" thing that some in this thread are making it out to be.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
Yeah, I'm not convinced of that. I mean I've been a player of this game since Beta. A player of Champions Online prior. And an early adopter, tester, and player of City of Heroes since the day I was "sold" on the concept by Statesman at a comic con many many many years ago. I've got a pretty good recollection of the "history of the game" for almost everything Cryptic Studios has ever created.
But I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game as long as you maintain your assertion that you were just one of those "CBS said no" people and NOT one of those "Ship is TOO OLD!" people ...
Oh wait. Nevermind.
But I think once they released the Tier 5 excelsior that ship had sailed. And by Agents of Yesterday, that ship had already discovered America, New Zealand, Australia and Atlantis and had been retrofitted with a nuclear reactor and an etherpropeller.
(While this may make me look foolish because as has been demonstrated by another poster I have zero knowledge of the history of the game) ... When the game launched, there was some logic in the tier system.
T4 were the hero ships. And T5 was the DSSV and the Luna in Science, the Assault Cruiser and Star Cruiser in ENG, and the two brand new looking escorts in Tactical. Over on the Klingon side, the players even got the Vo'Quv, a totally new never before seen idea for a ship (a carrier). It was all brand new stuff except for the Luna (based on the books, but still cutting edge in Star Trek lore timeline) and the Sovereign (which was the most recent Enterprise and just one of three skins).
So yeah, for that brief shining moment in the history of the game, there was a progression in the tiers through time, with only small holes in consistency. Granted outside of you, me and a handful of others, most posters on these forums weren't playing the game during that very small window.
Then the hero ships got retrofits. Then the store came out. Then the AGT Galaxy special. And the excelsior. And the D'Kyr. And so on and so forth. The logic ended very fast and very much as you say ... the ship sailed.
But even today people cling to this idea. It's fun and entertaining in 2016, now that there's a T6 Xindi ship a T6 T'laru, a T5-U Constellation, a T6 Daedalus ... and soon the T6 Connie will join its ranks.
There's still threads making fun of the concept (peep the new T6 NX-01 request thread). So the idea that age has something to do with tiers is something that no matter how many times a new ship that breaks this imagined rule is released, still gets pushed forth as existing.
SIDE NOTE: While it's all lost to multiple forum revamps, one of my longest standing issues with the tier system and this "too old" debate is that many of the same posters who back then clung to the idea, were also massively OK with the Excelsior being pound for pound slightly better than the Sovereign. It's been the fuel for my own fire for years and years and years. A great many of the defenders of the purity of the tier system, those who felt that age mattered, were all very much in support of the Excelsior being slightly better at being a cruiser than the Sovereign. That always bugged me. So combine that with a massive fandom for the 1960s style ships and it's pretty obvious where my foolishness and ignorance for wanting a ship that's too old, like the Constitution class starship, to be playable at end-game really came from.
TLDR: If it's perfectly OK for the Excelsior to be on par with the Sovereign, then give me the better Enterprise (certainly better than Harriman's Ent-B ) ... Kirk's Enterprise ... at the end-game and let me be on my merry way.
If the T'Varo wasn't already a Tier 6 ship, I could also totally see an NX-01 / Somraw / T'Varo package (be it lockbox, promo, C-Store or event ship) coming. Though I don't think that would generate the excitement the Connie gets. (Maybe that means it would be the perfect Event reward - the exclusive-never-come-back factor will get people to run on those ships anyway.)
So what? I've been here since beta too, and I played Champions and City of Heroes in beta too. So we're both old, that doesn't explain your clear ignorance about what the executive producers and developers of STO have been saying for the past 6 years - until recently, when the message changed.
Every statement you've made clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Way to omit the clarifying point I made to attempt to prove your point: "But all signs point to this not being an old ship, but being from the future"
I've never defended the Excelsior as a superior ship, nor do I agree that it should be. For that matter, I'm not really a fan of the Xindi ships or the Andorian ships, or the Vulcan ships, or any of the older ships. And really, they aren't superior ships anymore, and haven't been for a while, so I don't get the point you're trying to make.
Oh, I made a statement that says the ship is too old? It is, chronologically speaking. So is the Excelsior. That's just another one of those annoying facts of the Star Trek canon. The fact that the Excelsior was still in use during the TNG era has more to do with the real world and the shows budget, but I'll bite and say that the Excelsior was an incredibly advanced ship when it came out, designed to replace the flagship of the fleet - the Refit Constitution (not the TOS era ship, but it's replacement). Memory Alpha points out that the DESIGN carried forward - not necessarily the original ships of that make and model - for the next 100 years. In the real world, we're still using the same basic design for sailing ships over a hundred years later, though the technology in use aboard those vessels has updated with time, but I guess that's just another of those facts that we can toss out the window right?
Regardless, the most glaring fact remains that these new ship - the T6 TEMPORAL Connie et al - clearly aren't ships from the 23rd century anymore.
All I did was underscore your own commentary. In the one post you came at me and called me foolish and ignorant, stating that your position against the T6 Connie has been because CBS said no. And had nothing to do with all of the other arguments I recollected from the history of this long standing debate.
Then in your very next post you go ahead and once again take up the flag for how the Connie is too old.
So to recap:
I'm foolish. I'm ignorant of the history of STO. I'm wrong. I'm totally obfuscating your points.
But you, who are on point and laser focused, have to make sure that we all here fully realize that the T6 Connie was always a solid NO from Cryptic because CBS said no. But while you're at it, it was a stupid idea because the ship is too old!
That's pretty much what I'm taking from your posts. Feel free to continue to clarify it for ignorant fools like myself. I would love to hear more about how the ship that debuts in 24 short hours is too old to be effective in this game.
Gotta love when people resort to generic namecalling because they know thye've lost an argument.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
Who's arguing? I'm having a debate, using facts to back up my point of view. It's not my fault that the other side of the debate is ignoring those facts.
Which part of "Temporal ship" don't you understand? At no point have I said that the "Temporal" Constitution is too old to be effective in the game, so I've got no idea what you've been reading.
But you know what, go on ahead, if it makes you feel better about yourself go ahead and think of yourself as superior and smart and take your "win" or whatever you need to do to get on with your life.
I'm done hitting my head against this brick wall.
Yet you're here as well because.... why, exactly?
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
It was never absolutely proven. In fact, in closing the statement they offered that we never know what could happen in the future.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
Try it.
The correct phrase is "T5 connie: Never going to happen!" and that still holds true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/4z1lvg/rd_pack_promotion/d6s7x66
It even has sources! (I really didn't think there woulds till be any links to those old blog posts around...
My take:
Cryptic wanted to offer it, CBS said no at that time. For the 50th anniversary and in contract negotiations to extend the license and add consoles, CBS changed their mind and said either "go ahead" or "go ahead but make it rare like the alien ships."
Source: Every company ever.
So, if Cryptic lied about about CBS saying no, they would be guilty of acting in bad faith at best and behaving potentially libelous at worst.
Therefore, it's probably true CBS Studios said no at a previous point in time, instead of Cryptic going through some kind of bizarre Andy Kaufman-type social experiment to TRIBBLE people off for 6 straight years by lying about what their licensor said regarding an end-game Connie just for teh lulz.